Risk models for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP): smoking and chronic liver disease are predictors of protection against PEP.

DiMagno MJ, Spaete JP, Ballard DD, Wamsteker EJ, Saini SD. Risk models for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP): smoking and chronic liver disease are predictors of protection against PEP. Pancreas. 2013 Aug 1; 42(6):996-1003.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 09-213 – Medical Decision-Making Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: We investigated which variables independently associated with protection against or development of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and severity of PEP. Subsequently, we derived predictive risk models for PEP. METHODS: In a case-control design, 6505 patients had 8264 ERCPs, 211 patients had PEP, and 22 patients had severe PEP. We randomly selected 348 non-PEP controls. We examined 7 established- and 9 investigational variables. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, 7 variables predicted PEP: younger age, female sex, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), pancreatic sphincterotomy, moderate-difficult cannulation (MDC), pancreatic stent placement, and lower Charlson score. Protective variables were current smoking, former drinking, diabetes, and chronic liver disease (CLD, biliary/transplant complications). Multivariate analysis identified seven independent variables for PEP, three protective (current smoking, CLD-biliary, CLD-transplant/hepatectomy complications) and 4 predictive (younger age, suspected SOD, pancreatic sphincterotomy, MDC). Pre- and post-ERCP risk models of 7 variables have a C-statistic of 0.74. Removing age (seventh variable) did not significantly affect the predictive value (C-statistic of 0.73) and reduced model complexity. Severity of PEP did not associate with any variables by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: By using the newly identified protective variables with 3 predictive variables, we derived 2 risk models with a higher predictive value for PEP compared to prior studies.